From: Van oost Kenneth (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat 26 Apr 2003 - 19:05:53 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wade T. Smith" <email@example.com>
> The performance must also be perceived, and the venue (and its
> determining factors of the quality of performance and receptivity of
> the audience) is perhaps more important than the performer in this
> phase of cultural transmission.
I agree up to the point that performances are understandable only
and than just in their ' own terms '...They are tied to the used lan-
guage in which the performance is/ was originally ' composed '.
" Translations " in that matter always show differenties in tone, rhythm ans what is worse, connotion and meaning.
Performances are only to be perceived in a language we can
understand_ any peformance has to be ' written ' in a language
which is communicable, and yes the venue of which language is
do part is important but IMO, still there is a difference between
what the performer wishes to express and what we perceive
as audience despite the fact that both are in the same theatre.
Between the language used by the performer and the " ideas "
we perceive about what the performer is saying and doing there
is still a gap which IMO can only be individualisticly biased.
Performance can 't be stripped of its ' venue ' setting, that is
basically what I am saying here, and I think you said the same
thing in the above, but IMO each performance has to find....
find its way in the personal vocabular which is ours in such
a way that each performance has yet another level of recep-
tivity in each and one of us.
Each time each performance ' writes ' another book in the
minds of all the people watching it....and that is in my book,
individualisticly biased... " the performance appears, but
appears only to an ' I ' that thinks "....
There is the venue that is common, and that is the setting
wherein the performer performs, but what we perceive as
audience is individualisticly biased.
Performance and performer are maybe equal partners,
although still the performer has his ' individuality ' in what
he performs, but IMO performance/ performer and
audience are not !
> At any rate, the lesson from performance theory is that the performance
> and the performer, as in McLuhan's theory that the medium is
> indivisible from the message, are equal partners in culture and
> cultural evolution.
> There is no play without the theatre.
> - Wade
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 26 Apr 2003 - 19:14:29 GMT